The End Of Micros?

[Clan Riffster]

Does someone have example of so called lame micros?

Yes; Lay Mass Micro

Since it's mine, I don't consider it to be rude for me to point it out.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Although I do not hate micros, and simply personally dislike lame urban micros, I must agree with the original poster (OP). I suspect that the folks who run the geocaching.com listing site will eventually need to find a way to ban or offload most lame urban micros, and for the same reason that they eventually were forced to put a cap on virtuals and them move them off-site -- that reason is "spew": the ever-increasing volume of meaningless and frivolous listings until the entire category (in the earlier case, virtuals, and in this case, micros) becomes a burden to even list on the service and steps must be taken to limit or prohibit new listings.

 

Again, I am writing this as an observer, and am not writing this because I have any vendetta against micros -- I have nothing against good micros, and we even own a few micros ourselves. The fact that I do not like lame urban micros means little to me, and certainly is not the reason why I shared the observation which I did above, as I can always ignore them, which I do (of course, Sue usually feels compelled to go find them, as she cannot imagine ignoring ANY cache located within a 10 mile radius of our home; its an addiction for her. . .!)

[+tozainamboku]

Although I do not hate micros, and simply personally dislike lame urban micros, I must agree with the original poster (OP). I suspect that the folks who run the geocaching.com listing site will eventually need to find a way to ban or offload most lame urban micros, and for the same reason that they eventually were forced to put a cap on virtuals and them move them off-site -- that reason is "spew": the ever-increasing volume of meaningless and frivolous listings until the entire category (in the earlier case, virtuals, and in this case, micros) becomes a burden to even list on the service and steps must be taken to limit or prohibit new listings.

 

Again, I am writing this as an observer, and am not writing this because I have any vendetta against micros -- I have nothing against good micros, and we even own a few micros ourselves. The fact that I do not like lame urban micros means little to me, and certainly is not the reason why I shared the observation which I did above, as I can always ignore them, which I do (of course, Sue usually feels compelled to go find them, as she cannot imagine ignoring ANY cache located within a 10 mile radius of our home; its an addiction for her. . .!)

 

So your prediction is TPTB will decide that there are too many micros so they add a guideline that micros must be placed in a location that is "of interest to other players, and has a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday locations." The volunteer reviewers would then have to make a decision as to whether the guidelines were met. After a while the reviewers would complain that they are not capable of making this decision. TPTB would then spin-off a new site where members of the community would create categories (eg. historic location, scenic hike in the woods, McDonald's, lamppost in mall parking lots) and micros would be hidden in one of these categories. People who don't like lamppost hides could then ignore the whole category. Yeah, I would say that there is a precedent for this.

Edited June 15, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Although I do not hate micros, and simply personally dislike lame urban micros, I must agree with the original poster (OP). I suspect that the folks who run the geocaching.com listing site will eventually need to find a way to ban or offload most lame urban micros, and for the same reason that they eventually were forced to put a cap on virtuals and them move them off-site -- that reason is "spew": the ever-increasing volume of meaningless and frivolous listings until the entire category (in the earlier case, virtuals, and in this case, micros) becomes a burden to even list on the service and steps must be taken to limit or prohibit new listings.

 

Again, I am writing this as an observer, and am not writing this because I have any vendetta against micros -- I have nothing against good micros, and we even own a few micros ourselves. The fact that I do not like lame urban micros means little to me, and certainly is not the reason why I shared the observation which I did above, as I can always ignore them, which I do (of course, Sue usually feels compelled to go find them, as she cannot imagine ignoring ANY cache located within a 10 mile radius of our home; its an addiction for her. . .!)

So your prediction is TPTB will decide that there are too many micros so they add a guideline that micros must be placed in a location that is "of interest to other players, and has a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday locations." The volunteer reviewers would then have to make a decision as to whether the guidelines were met. After a while the reviewers would complain that they are not capable of making this decision. TPTB would then spin-off a new site where members of the community would create categories (eg. historic location, scenic hike in the woods, McDonald's, lamppost in mall parking lots) and micros would be hidden in one of these categories. People who don't like lamppost hides could then ignore the whole category. Yeah, I would say that there is a precedent for this.

Upon reflection, I suspect that the scenario which you propose is actually a very likely one if the quantity of of meaningless, mindless, superficial, and trivial lame urban micros placed continues to increase at the current rate (or if the rate itself increases), much as we saw happen with virtuals once folks took it upon themselves to abuse the definition of the category. In fact, it will likely be necesary as a proactive prophylactic survival measure for the service/site, else the site could be swamped with these little things. So, just as there now exists a "Waymarking" website owned by Groundspeak, there may someday also exist a "lame urban micro" website, although I am sure that the name will likely be far more politically correct (PC) than the one which I assigned, perhaps something along the lines of "unclassifiable geospew" or "unclassified geo residuum".

Edited June 15, 2006 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+FireRef]

A couple of comments after reading through this thread:

 

1) I tend to waver back and forth - sometimes I like to find micros quickly, because I don't have a lot of time to go treking in the woods, or the patience to spent a ton of time hunting for the cache. Other times I like a little brainwork, and have enjoyed some of the puzzle caches I worked hard to find immensely.

 

2) Any cache is valuable to someone - some people prefer large numbers of little caches, some prefer smaller numbers of more difficult caches. This is what the ratings system is for. When I download the cache data for my GPS (A treo 650 with TomTom), I separate the data into easy (terrain and difficulty in the 2 or less range), and hard (either or both over 2), and have different logos on the map for these. When I am close to home, I am willing to spend more time hunting for more difficult caches. When I am further from home, I'd prefer not to waste an hour hunting for one cache when I could have found 5-10 in the same amount of time.

 

3) I like the idea of the ratings system.

 

4) I have placed a number of micros - as a matter of fact, all of the caches I've placed are micros or slightly larger. 3-4 of them were just simple ones, placed in relatively easy locations to find. 2 of the sets now are serieses, with a final cache by collecting coordinates from the components. All of them have a chemistry theme, being a chemistry teacher. Some involve some puzzle solving to find them. This appeals to a broad variety of people.

 

Just my $0.02 worth!

[+sbell111]

So your prediction is TPTB will decide that there are too many micros so they add a guideline that micros must be placed in a location that is "of interest to other players, and has a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday locations." The volunteer reviewers would then have to make a decision as to whether the guidelines were met. After a while the reviewers would complain that they are not capable of making this decision. TPTB would then spin-off a new site where members of the community would create categories (eg. historic location, scenic hike in the woods, McDonald's, lamppost in mall parking lots) and micros would be hidden in one of these categories. People who don't like lamppost hides could then ignore the whole category. Yeah, I would say that there is a precedent for this.

Eventually, there will be only one cache on GC.com. All others will be spun off to their own sites.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I will call what it is if others will not, it is called Micro Spew. Not all micro are BS hides. But micros that are hidden in area the will support a large cache are Micro Spew or BS. These micros are place by lazy hidders that are to cheap to spend more than the 5 cents it cost to hide a film can with a peice of binder paper in it. A micro in a location that will not support a full size cache is one thing, a micro in the forest or other open area is micro spew.

 

I hear this vomit of about micro in the forums "A micro is a much more challenging cache to find" Well that does not excuse the placement of a micro in and are that leads to the vegation being trampled down by cachers looking for the.

[+Team Gryarvold]

Do we like to hunt Micros? Yes. Do we like to hide Micros? Yes.

 

For us what it boils down to is this. What do we have time to do today with our schedule? Can we go for a hike or bag a couple multicaches? Are we going somewhere all dressed up and we have time enroute to hunt or p&g? Micros with muggles are more challenging and we may have to try more than once to obtain that cache. Do we like it any less? No.

 

To us both the micro caches as well as the larger have a place in our hunts and we would hate for the micros to fade away and not have any to find or place. We make use of micros for the first part of a multicache and have the larger at the end with all the goodies. We use micros to place for people like us to have time just for P&G's. We don't mind so much hicking a while and then finding a micro because that means less stuff to pack in and out. But we love finding the larger caches just as much. We know when we go in what we are looking for and if we don't want that one we go on to the next one, which in truth happens very rarely. Some places seem less disturbed with a micro placed than it would with a larger and that is fine with us as well.

 

Just our 2 cents.

[+martinell]

 

Eventually, there will be only one cache on GC.com. All others will be spun off to their own sites.

 

I hope not - I like having them all on one web page. That way whatever I am in the mood for I can easily pull up and do. To include mixing and matching.

[+tozainamboku]

 

I hear this vomit of about micro in the forums "A micro is a much more challenging cache to find" Well that does not excuse the placement of a micro in and are that leads to the vegation being trampled down by cachers looking for the.

 

I know I am in the minority in the forums - or at least despised by the micro-haters - but I must refute this statement. Often micros are more challenging to find. It's pretty hard to hide an ammo can in a way that makes it challenging - aside from digging a hole and we don't want to go there. Secondly, at least around here in So. California, when I look for a micro hidden in the woods/desert/mountains I look around for places where the micro may be hidden and can usually find it without trampling down vegitation. On the other hand - regular size caches are typically hidden under bushes and I have to move branches out of the way when looking and often when retrieving the cache.

[+ArtieD]

Terracaching. The solution to your suggestion. A user rating system isn't likely here. Terracaching is built on it.

 

edit for spelling

 

How did I know this guy would plug TerraCaching.com?

 

TC.com isn't god's gift, no matter what you'd like to think...at best it is another site with pretty much the same kind of caches this site has. "Quality"? Hardly. I have found a few there and they are just the same.

 

Now...on topic...to me, micros are just as valid as any other cache. Granted, it'd be nice if they were a bit challenging to get and led to a moderately interesting place, but variety is the spice of life.

[+thedeadpirate]

I will call what it is if others will not, it is called Micro Spew.

 

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

As someone who lives, and walks daily in a large city, I have really enjoyed the urban micros that I have found! I luckily live in the only large N.American city without a Walmart, so I don't have to worry about the notorious Wally's micros.

 

 

Not true, New York City has essentially not been embraced by Wally yet. Technically the area now does have a couple, there's one just over the New Jersey line, and a couple in Long Island just past Queens, but outside of that you have to go a good 30-50 miles from Manhattan to see one. There's also supposed to be one coming in White Plains (near me and about 20-25 miles north of the City), but it's been delayed for over a year for unknown reasons. But I'm glad to see someone else is Wally-less, I thought the only other part of the continent that was sparse in Wal-Marts was Vermont.

[+Bill & Tammy]

Terracaching. The solution to your suggestion. A user rating system isn't likely here. Terracaching is built on it.

 

edit for spelling

 

How did I know this guy would plug TerraCaching.com?

 

TC.com isn't god's gift, no matter what you'd like to think...at best it is another site with pretty much the same kind of caches this site has. "Quality"? Hardly. I have found a few there and they are just the same.

 

Now...on topic...to me, micros are just as valid as any other cache. Granted, it'd be nice if they were a bit challenging to get and led to a moderately interesting place, but variety is the spice of life.

 

First, you say you have found a "few" TC caches, however I can see only one TC find log recorded by you.

 

You also said in a TC thread: "I don't know, but it seems to me that people here should worry less about what people say about TC.com and more about what happens here. I've noticed that there always seems to be people that always have to compare the two sites or piss and moan about what others think of it. Isn't the point of this site about caching? Just go out and have fun!"

 

Which is it going to be? Why are you worried then what people say about TC here? Sorry, but your credibility is plummeting fast.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Folks, you know that -- like most people here -- I have nothing against a few tangents in a thread, and have nothing against normal forum topic drift; I even appreciate normal forum topic drift. However, I must note with some amazement that it is my observation that this thread is continually being hijacked by people -- from both sides of the micro issue -- who continually and consistently keep trying to convert this forum topic to a debate about the merits (or lack thereof) of micros, well, specifically, of lame urban micros, which has NOTHING to do with the topic and thead started by the original poster. If you really must once again endlessly debate and hash out the by-now-very-tired issue of lame urban micros and their existential right to existence, may I remind you that there already exist several threads on that topic, and you are also welcome to start a new thread on that topic (if you really must...! sigh...)

[+ArtieD]

First, you say you have found a "few" TC caches, however I can see only one TC find log recorded by you.

 

You also said in a TC thread: "I don't know, but it seems to me that people here should worry less about what people say about TC.com and more about what happens here. I've noticed that there always seems to be people that always have to compare the two sites or piss and moan about what others think of it. Isn't the point of this site about caching? Just go out and have fun!"

 

Which is it going to be? Why are you worried then what people say about TC here? Sorry, but your credibility is plummeting fast.

 

In your eyes, perhaps.

 

Yes, I have found three, one logged and the other two which haven't been logged yet. Excuse me for not logging them instantly.

 

My point - which apparently was too sophisticated for you - was that an issue is being discussed here, and that is whether micro caches are losing popularity or not. Hikergps chimes in, basically advertising TC.com, and that is hardly the topic of discussion. However, with this person and with you, apparently, touting TC.com as the "premier" geocaching site at every chance you get here, it is not conductive to the growth of geocaching as a sport. No, it always boils down to you guys going on and on about TerraCaching here, then running back to the TC.com forums and pissing about how they are talking about you here.

 

Perhaps if you weren't such a TC.com fanboi you'd realize that.

[Jeremy]

Although I do agree that TC folks increasingly enjoy advertising in these forums (which better stop, BTW), there's no need for this animosity to each other. Chat about the topics yes but keep the direct attacks away (eg. fanboi, plummeting credibility, etc). Thanks.

 

Personally I could only thing of microbrews when I read the title. I appreciate the shock value of the OP but the quality of caches is an issue across the board - not just directed to microbrews - err micro caches. Personally I don't care for micros and don't search for them but I'm happy to filter them out when I do my searching.

 

And sadly even I get lax on logging my own finds.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

I will call what it is if others will not, it is called Micro Spew. Not all micro are BS hides. But micros that are hidden in area the will support a large cache are Micro Spew or BS. These micros are place by lazy hidders that are to cheap to spend more than the 5 cents it cost to hide a film can with a peice of binder paper in it. A micro in a location that will not support a full size cache is one thing, a micro in the forest or other open area is micro spew.

 

I hear this vomit of about micro in the forums "A micro is a much more challenging cache to find" Well that does not excuse the placement of a micro in and are that leads to the vegation being trampled down by cachers looking for the.

 

Oh look, yet another one who thinks his opinion should be that of every cacher.

 

At least I think - was that even in English?

[+Bill & Tammy]

Although I do agree that TC folks increasingly enjoy advertising in these forums (which better stop, BTW), there's no need for this animosity to each other. Chat about the topics yes but keep the direct attacks away (eg. fanboi, plummeting credibility, etc). Thanks.

 

Personally I could only thing of microbrews when I read the title. I appreciate the shock value of the OP but the quality of caches is an issue across the board - not just directed to microbrews - err micro caches. Personally I don't care for micros and don't search for them but I'm happy to filter them out when I do my searching.

 

And sadly even I get lax on logging my own finds.

 

Of course you are right Jeremy, this site really isn't the place for discussion of another cache publishing site and I didn't intend for it to degenerate into personal attacks. But the subject was brought up and the other site in question was disparaged by a user who in my humble opinion hasn't been involved with it long enough to condemn those of us who do and I also felt a certain level of hypocrisy in their quoted statement. If a new user to Groundspeak were as critical without giving it a fair shot and educating themselves my response would be the same across the board.

 

Also my thread title wasn't so much for shock value as it is a response to what I have seen is the growing number attacks on a certain cache type. My main interest remains, as with other caches types that have been archived that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water and eliminate enjoyed venues of this hobby because a vocal segment doesn't accept their validity as "real caches" or perceives the majority placed aren't up to a certain standard.

 

OK, I promise to be nice from now on.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Bill & Tammy

[+Big Max]

What about another rating to the Diffulty-Terrain ratings. Something like Scenery. A 1 would be your standard Walmart micro with a 5 being the top of Stony Pass in the San Juan Mountains of Southern Colorado. A micro sitting on top of Pikes Peak could be a 1/1/5. You can drive right up to it, pull it out and sign it, then enjoy the view.

[Jeremy]

The physical nature of a micro means that it is a cache, regardless of the argument of whether a cache is lame or not. The idea that it would be spun off to another web site is an unnecessary worry.

 

I'll adapt an old quote and say (IMO):

 

It has been said that Geocaching.com is the worst form of geocaching except all the others that have been tried.

 

There are the flaws but we'll find out better ways of separating the wheat from the chaff.

[+CheshireFrog]

The physical nature of a micro means that it is a cache, regardless of the argument of whether a cache is lame or not. The idea that it would be spun off to another web site is an unnecessary worry.

 

I'll adapt an old quote and say (IMO):

 

It has been said that Geocaching.com is the worst form of geocaching except all the others that have been tried.

 

There are the flaws but we'll find out better ways of separating the wheat from the chaff.

 

OK, that's what I was waiting for. As I've said before, I'm not a big fan of micros, but their existence doesn't bother me in the least.

 

So the bottom line is: micros are not lame, some caches are lame. I know, there have been a number of posts that stated they weren’t against all micros, just lame ones. Of course, that begs the question who will decide if a micro is lame?

 

So why then is it whenever someone starts a rant like this, it’s always directed at micros? Shouldn’t that hold true for ALL caches? If you can contact a micro owner and challenge him to allow you to put a better cache at that site, why shouldn’t we do that for all lame caches?

 

For example: I have three caches ready to place. The contents of all three are themed; one has DVDs in it, one has foreign money, and the last has laptop parts in it, (PCMCIA combo NIC/Modem, Wireless adapter, Smartcard Reader, etc.). At the Mount Herman open space there is a location that I’d like to put one of these, but there’s already a cache in that location. I went out to check that cache out recently and found that it contained a couple of McDonald’s toys, a couple of Kinder Egg toys, and a few pencils and erasers in a leaky camo-taped butter tub. I, on the other hand, have Kryloned a camo pattern onto a large lock and lock container and added screen printed metal plates for the Geocache labels. Mine is clearly a superior cache, therefore I should challenge the owner for the hide spot, right?

 

That’s going to go over big.

 

Some have complained that micros are OK in urban settings, but that inappropriate in the woods. I saw an inappropriate cache recently. After a 1500’ climb up a dry wash that ran about a 60 degree slope most of the way, I was treated to an ammo can filled with quarter machine bendy figures, dollar store toys and Thomas the Tank Engine stickers. In the entire history of this cache nobody has ever dragged their kid up here, so why is this cache filled with items that would only appeal to a child? Clearly somebody should challenge the owner for this location also.

 

It’s a common theme in the forums to whine about micros, either they are lame hides, artificially inflating people’s numbers, taking up a spot where something else could be hidden, etc. etc. etc. The complaints may be different, but the common thread through all of this is the container size: micro. If you’re truly concerned about cache quality then let’s apply the rules across the board and quit pretending that all larger caches are more interesting than micros. If you just hate micros and have dedicated your life to their demise, learn to live with disappointment. Jeremy just said they’re not going anywhere.

[+hikergps]

First, you say you have found a "few" TC caches, however I can see only one TC find log recorded by you.

 

You also said in a TC thread: "I don't know, but it seems to me that people here should worry less about what people say about TC.com and more about what happens here. I've noticed that there always seems to be people that always have to compare the two sites or piss and moan about what others think of it. Isn't the point of this site about caching? Just go out and have fun!"

 

Which is it going to be? Why are you worried then what people say about TC here? Sorry, but your credibility is plummeting fast.

 

In your eyes, perhaps.

 

Yes, I have found three, one logged and the other two which haven't been logged yet. Excuse me for not logging them instantly.

 

My point - which apparently was too sophisticated for you - was that an issue is being discussed here, and that is whether micro caches are losing popularity or not. Hikergps chimes in, basically advertising TC.com, and that is hardly the topic of discussion. However, with this person and with you, apparently, touting TC.com as the "premier" geocaching site at every chance you get here, it is not conductive to the growth of geocaching as a sport. No, it always boils down to you guys going on and on about TerraCaching here, then running back to the TC.com forums and pissing about how they are talking about you here.

 

Perhaps if you weren't such a TC.com fanboi you'd realize that.

 

hikergps here. No, TC is not the topic of disussion, but I was responding to this post:

 

What we need is a user-compiled rating system for all caches. That way the cream can rise and the stank can sink. The problem isn't micros, it's not knowing which micros suck before wasting an hour on them. If the FTF can say, "this one's really great" and give it five stars, or "thanks for placing the cache, SL, yawn" and give it 1 star, those of us who follow after can at least figure out which are worth the trip.

 

I was merely answeing his question regarding a user rating system based on information that I had at the time. Since then I have been given references to posts on the GC forums that looks like a system is being worked on.

 

I have never touted TC as anything "premiere". Both GC and TC have their good and bad qualities.

 

Not sure what the running back and forth is about. Did I post a thread on the TC forums referring to a thread here on TCing? Yes. Was it to be juvenile and start a war? No. It was information that I thought people would be interested in.

 

I am active on both boards, both sites, and with both activities. I'm sorry that bothers you.

 

Although I do agree that TC folks increasingly enjoy advertising in these forums (which better stop, BTW)

 

Your wish is my command. If anyone asks about TC or anything related to it, I will email or PM instead of excersizing free speech and posting on your boards.

Edited June 15, 2006 by hikergps

[+sbell111]

Your wish is my command. If anyone asks about TC or anything related to it, I will email or PM instead of excersizing free speech and posting on your boards.

Free Speech:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Show me where it says anything about private citizens forbidding you to advertise other companies' products on their boards?

[+hikergps]

Your wish is my command. If anyone asks about TC or anything related to it, I will email or PM instead of excersizing free speech and posting on your boards.

Free Speech:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Show me where it says anything about private citizens forbidding you to advertise other companies' products on their boards?

 

You call it advertising, I call it responding to a post. Regardless, I'll take back the free speech comment, I was feeling a little hostile when I made it.

[Clan Riffster]

So why then is it whenever someone starts a rant like this, it’s always directed at micros?

Because a micro has a greater chance of achieving a high LQ, (Lameness Quotient) than a regular container. Of the caches I've found, roughly 15% of the micros have been what I would consider to be lame, while only 1% of the regular size have been lame. While the geocaching community as a whole appreciates your staunch defense of micros, I hope you can step back a bit and realize there are very few folks out there who dislike all micros. The majority of the anti-micro posts have qualifiers such as "Not all micros are bad".

 

I believe micros are here to stay, and I'm glad they are. Micros as a whole do contribute to the community, by offering folks alternatives to the norm. That being said, there are some incredibly lame micros out there, and each player must come up with their own way of dealing with them. I've learned by experience who places lame micros, and when I see their names as the cache owners, I automatically add them to my ignore list.

 

A slight drift off topic; You are absolutely correct when you said a cracked butter tub filled with McToys is an example of a lame regular cache. The question now is, how to we, as a community, combat lameness? Peer pressure is an excellant force multiplier. Perhaps if we could come to some sort of standard agreement regarding how we logged lame caches, then the hiders of said lame caches might work toward decreasing the LQ of their caches. The other popular cache listing site has come up with a method of evaluating caches, but it's way too complicated for this ol' Riffster to figure out.

[Jeremy]

Oops. My bad. Already covered

Edited June 15, 2006 by Jeremy

[+Bill & Tammy]

So why then is it whenever someone starts a rant like this, it’s always directed at micros?

A slight drift off topic; You are absolutely correct when you said a cracked butter tub filled with McToys is an example of a lame regular cache. The question now is, how to we, as a community, combat lameness? Peer pressure is an excellant force multiplier. Perhaps if we could come to some sort of standard agreement regarding how we logged lame caches, then the hiders of said lame caches might work toward decreasing the LQ of their caches. The other popular cache listing site has come up with a method of evaluating caches, but it's way too complicated for this ol' Riffster to figure out.

 

I like what you have to say here. I am not a great fan of the rating system over at the other site as you mentioned because it allows you to judge a cache unfound, is complex and I hope it won't be used as a model here. Having said that, the drawback here in using the existing mechanisms is if one is brutually honest about their opinion of a cache they risk having their log deleted by the cache owner.

 

OK, maybe this needs to be moved over to the website forum as a feature request.

[+ventura_kids]

The most awesome caches I've found have been micros.

There are many very, very clever micros around here.

 

I certainly don't agree with outlawing any of them.

 

Around here the regular caches in the bushes are the lousy ones.

They have rattlers, poison oak, stinging nettles, and ticks... not to mention the mosquitos.

 

Please leave the micros alone.

Just don't find them if it's not your preference.

[+WalruZ]

The main reason for wanting a larger container is swag, which most experienced geocachers slowly wean themselves from. Location is what geocaching is all about. (The Language of Location, or something like that) Micros are more likely to be placed in poor locations, but lumping them all together is ham-handed. One of the worst caches I and other locals have looked for lately is an ammo can near a lumberyard. In my log I said that I came away from the hunt (2 visits) smelling like a dog that had rolled in something.

 

If you're tired of looking for small containers in parking lots, try Waymarking. We don't have any of those. Of course, we don't have any ammo boxes either. What we do have is locations.

[+tozainamboku]

The most awesome caches I've found have been micros.

There are many very, very clever micros around here.

 

I certainly don't agree with outlawing any of them.

 

Around here the regular caches in the bushes are the lousy ones.

They have rattlers, poison oak, stinging nettles, and ticks... not to mention the mosquitos.

 

Please leave the micros alone.

Just don't find them if it's not your preference.

You only like micros because you haven't figured how to hide this yet

 

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Im impressed. A lamppost cover that isnt covered in bird droppings!

[+Renegade Knight]

Does someone have example of so called lame micros?

Yes; Lay Mass Micro

Since it's mine, I don't consider it to be rude for me to point it out.

 

This one is mine. It's missing. Imagine that.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

CheshireFrog @ Jun 15 2006, 11:56 AM) *

So why then is it whenever someone starts a rant like this, it’s always directed at micros?

 

Spend some time, since we don't have tools available to us to do it, scanning who posts here and how often, you'll find that there are VERY few geocachers here (as a percentage of the whole) and those here post basically the same thing every time.

 

'I hate micros' is one of the running themes.

 

That's not a troll, by the way, just my perception of fact that I believe in part answers his question!

 

It would be interesting to see, if someone could run such a search, who the top, say, 50 posters are and the difference between their average # of posts and that of the next 50.

 

I suspect that less than 50 set the tone of the whole forum.

 

Anyway, it's natural that folks that think alike stick together, that's the nature of forums, so once you know basically how those top 50 posters think (their stated likes and dislikes) you can pretty well predict how any given thread will go!

 

Then, contemplate the tremendous power those 50 top posters have, collectively. To anyone coming to the forums that doesn't know better those voices might very well dictate the game. A newbie reading these forums will certainly come away thinking micros must be lame, 'cause 'everybody' on here says they are!

 

Therefore, 'micros are lame' threads will show up far more often than 'I like micros'... you have to be totally new, stupid or flameproof to open a thread here that goes against the likes and desires of those top 50 or so posters!

[+Happy Humphrey]

My earlier suggestion still looks like a solution to me - why no comments?

[+Yellow ants]

My earlier suggestion still looks like a solution to me - why no comments?

 

Because people will rather flame eachother before responding to a well argued contentful post.

 

I liked your idea, FWIW.

[CoyoteRed]

So why then is it whenever someone starts a rant like this, it’s always directed at micros?

 

Because of the high number of lame caches that are also micros?

 

Shouldn’t that hold true for ALL caches?

 

Yes, it does.

 

If you can contact a micro owner and challenge him to allow you to put a better cache at that site, why shouldn’t we do that for all lame caches?

 

Wrong topic. Wrong interpretation of what was written. It had nothing to do with the "lameness" only the fact that a cache was placed that was too small for the area and thusly no full-sized logbook, trinkets, or room for TBs.

 

Size, one way or the other, does affect the coolness of a cache, but is not the beginning or end of if a cache is lame or not.

 

Hmmm.... I just had another thought. In revisiting the first point "why most people thing micros are lame," it could be labeling. It's hard to define "lame" and that's not to mention one person's lame is not another's. It's hard for some folks to wrap their minds around a concept that doesn't have a clear definition. The next best solution is to use a more concrete definition. Considering a good majority of lame caches are also micros, and micros are clearly defined as those marked as micros, then the concrete definition of lame becomes the same as that of micros.

[CoyoteRed]

It would be interesting to see, if someone could run such a search, who the top, say, 50 posters are and the difference between their average # of posts and that of the next 50.

 

It's even more interesting to note that number 4 on the list has more influence on the hobby as any grouping of 50, or 100 for that matter.

 

But don't think a small group rules the whole forum. There are plenty of factions on both sides of the issues. Just be thankful that one person can stand apart from another on one issue and together on another. It's not like there are Geocaching Political Parties, as much as some folks want such labels. I don't think any one group has that much influence otherwise things would be different.

[+Happy Humphrey]

It's hard to define "lame" and that's not to mention one person's lame is not another's.

I'm not claiming that NO caches are lame in almost everyone's opinion, but I notice that people are disappointed in caches because their expectations don't meet the owner's intention. So if someone places 100 identical car park micros, you may find half a dozen of them - then give up, call them "lame" and never go near a micro cache again.

 

But you were hoping that the micro would take you somewhere interesting, or at least entertain you with an amusing hide technique. Say, in this example, the guy who placed the microcaches was aiming the hides at those that like to find a hundred caches in a day. These might be great caches in the "numbers" sub-game: there are some like this in the UK (Motorway Madness), where the locations and hides aren't meant to be attractive but the caches are accessible by car and easily logged.

 

This is an extreme example, but the same applies to many caches (of any size): an easy find at the side of a track just around the corner from the car might appear slightly lame to those that like a challenge, but could be a great cache to others who bring the family along and don't have much time.

 

If only the owners' intentions were clearer, I think that the "lame micro" debate would die off.

 

HH

[CoyoteRed]

If only the owners' intentions were clearer, I think that the "lame micro" debate would die off.

 

Well, with this definition then I would say no cache is lame because I think it goes without saying that a placer's intention was to place a cache and that was accomplished.

 

However, I think most could reject this definition because it just doesn't work. Lame is always in the eye of beholder and it is what the finder gets out of it that's important. What kind of entertainment value does the cache present? I think that's the real key.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I don't think that many caches are just hidden for the sake of hiding one (in such a case, the cache may well be lame): there's usually a reason for the location and type. That's where the "intention" comes in. What's the target market for a micro?

[+Happy Humphrey]

I don't think that many caches are just hidden for the sake of hiding one (in such a case, the cache may well be lame): there's usually a reason for the location and type. That's where the "intention" comes in. What's the target market for a micro?

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

It would be interesting to see, if someone could run such a search, who the top, say, 50 posters are and the difference between their average # of posts and that of the next 50.

 

I suspect that less than 50 set the tone of the whole forum.

 

Someone can run such a search and pretty easily, too.

 

The top 50 posters, in order, are:

briansnat,Renegade Knight,Team GPSaxophone,Jeremy,Stunod,uperdooper,sbell111,The Leprechauns,Sparky-Watts,Mopar,Keystone,Markwell,welch,tirediron,BlueDeuce,Criminal,Jamie Z,TotemLake,carleenp,rusty_tlc,Marky,Alan2,Miragee,AtlantaGal,TeamK-9,JMBella,Prime Suspect,radioscout,sept1c_tank,Snoogans,CoyoteRed,JohnnyVegas,Webfoot,robert,woof n lulu,mtn-man,Deego,Lazyboy & Mitey Mite,umc,embra,Sputnik 57,BassoonPilot,Ambrosia,wildearth2001,New England n00b,robertlipe,Neo_Geo,Cache Viking,GEO*Trailblazer 1 and Divine

 

They average 4,900 posts per.

 

The next 50 average 2252 posts per, and are:

 

The Cheeseheads,El Diablo,TrailGators,Planet,Torry,Seamus,georgeandmary,Halden,evergreenhiker!,pdxmarathonman,GOT GPS?,ju66l3r,fly46,leatherman,ClydeE,cachew nut,PDOP's,CYBret,AuntieWeasel,Doc-Dean,peter,Simply Paul,wimseyguy,RichardMoore,flask,EraSeek,The Hokesters,TEAM 360,avroair,kealia,Anonymous',2oldfarts (the rockhounders),IV_Warrior,woodsters,CompuCash,Stuey,Pipanella,fizzymagic,CO Admin,Team DEMP,Team Cotati,Ladycacher,MissJenn,Pharisee,Milbank,ralann,Tahosa and Sons,sTeamTraen,clearpath and rutson

[+demhackbardt]

Personally, we like micros and full size caches. It's not always possible to go hiking in the woods or in park for a full size cache with a 5yr in the florida heat. Having micros around allow us to still get out of the house and do some caching when we otherwise couldn't because of the heat or the amount of hiking that our son can do.

 

Now we do get a little disappointed when we get out into a park and find micros when full sized caches could have been placed. Now we'll still find them, but having the micros in the park limit others that might place a full size there too given the distance limits.

 

The micros are sometimes also a good challenge to find. As an example it took 5 experienced cachers about 6 visits to a site to finally find the first stage in a micro multi-cache.

 

If you don't like micros just don't do them, but for some they are a good way to participate in the sport when they otherwise couldn't.

[+Criminal]

CheshireFrog @ Jun 15 2006, 11:56 AM) *

So why then is it whenever someone starts a rant like this, it’s always directed at micros?

 

Spend some time, since we don't have tools available to us to do it, scanning who posts here and how often, you'll find that there are VERY few geocachers here (as a percentage of the whole) and those here post basically the same thing every time.

 

'I hate micros' is one of the running themes.

 

That's not a troll, by the way, just my perception of fact that I believe in part answers his question!

 

It would be interesting to see, if someone could run such a search, who the top, say, 50 posters are and the difference between their average # of posts and that of the next 50.

 

I suspect that less than 50 set the tone of the whole forum.

 

Anyway, it's natural that folks that think alike stick together, that's the nature of forums, so once you know basically how those top 50 posters think (their stated likes and dislikes) you can pretty well predict how any given thread will go!

 

Then, contemplate the tremendous power those 50 top posters have, collectively. To anyone coming to the forums that doesn't know better those voices might very well dictate the game. A newbie reading these forums will certainly come away thinking micros must be lame, 'cause 'everybody' on here says they are!

 

Therefore, 'micros are lame' threads will show up far more often than 'I like micros'... you have to be totally new, stupid or flameproof to open a thread here that goes against the likes and desires of those top 50 or so posters!

I'm sure I'm in the top 50, and I don't have a problem with micros whatsoever. If you're implying that everyone in the top 50 agree on everything (or anything for that mattter), I don't agree with you.

[+Criminal]

There are the flaws but we'll find out better ways of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Ruh ro.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

It would be interesting to see, if someone could run such a search, who the top, say, 50 posters are and the difference between their average # of posts and that of the next 50.

 

I suspect that less than 50 set the tone of the whole forum.

 

Someone can run such a search and pretty easily, too.

 

The top 50 posters, in order, are:

briansnat,Renegade Knight,Team GPSaxophone,Jeremy,Stunod,uperdooper,sbell111,The Leprechauns,Sparky-Watts,Mopar,Keystone,Markwell,welch,tirediron,BlueDeuce,Criminal,Jamie Z,TotemLake,carleenp,rusty_tlc,Marky,Alan2,Miragee,AtlantaGal,TeamK-9,JMBella,Prime Suspect,radioscout,sept1c_tank,Snoogans,CoyoteRed,JohnnyVegas,Webfoot,robert,woof n lulu,mtn-man,Deego,Lazyboy & Mitey Mite,umc,embra,Sputnik 57,BassoonPilot,Ambrosia,wildearth2001,New England n00b,robertlipe,Neo_Geo,Cache Viking,GEO*Trailblazer 1 and Divine

 

They average 4,900 posts per.

 

The next 50 average 2252 posts per, and are:

 

The Cheeseheads,El Diablo,TrailGators,Planet,Torry,Seamus,georgeandmary,Halden,evergreenhiker!,pdxmarathonman,GOT GPS?,ju66l3r,fly46,leatherman,ClydeE,cachew nut,PDOP's,CYBret,AuntieWeasel,Doc-Dean,peter,Simply Paul,wimseyguy,RichardMoore,flask,EraSeek,The Hokesters,TEAM 360,avroair,kealia,Anonymous',2oldfarts (the rockhounders),IV_Warrior,woodsters,CompuCash,Stuey,Pipanella,fizzymagic,CO Admin,Team DEMP,Team Cotati,Ladycacher,MissJenn,Pharisee,Milbank,ralann,Tahosa and Sons,sTeamTraen,clearpath and rutson

Actually, that list above is only accurate if you insist upon averaging over the past 4.5 years (or more) of the forum's existence. Thus, the list, as shown, does not at all accurately reflect the most active posters over the past 6 or 12 months, much less over the past two months. In fact, some of the accounts listed above have long been inactive, and some have even been banned from the forums, and thus can hardly be defined as "active" in any sense of the word.

[+CheshireFrog]

So why then is it whenever someone starts a rant like this, it’s always directed at micros?

 

Because of the high number of lame caches that are also micros?

 

Shouldn’t that hold true for ALL caches?

 

Yes, it does.

 

If you can contact a micro owner and challenge him to allow you to put a better cache at that site, why shouldn’t we do that for all lame caches?

 

Wrong topic. Wrong interpretation of what was written. It had nothing to do with the "lameness" only the fact that a cache was placed that was too small for the area and thusly no full-sized logbook, trinkets, or room for TBs.

 

Size, one way or the other, does affect the coolness of a cache, but is not the beginning or end of if a cache is lame or not.

 

As to your assertion that quality is an issue for all caches, point me to the thread advocating that larger caches be removed from this site.

 

As to your assertion that the cache placed was too small for the area, that would be for the hider to say, not the finder. The cache may accomplish exactly what the hider intended. I wonder sometimes what people expect to get out of this game. In the "Micro in a Forest" rant going on in another thread the OP states that in the pursuit of an FTF he was taken to an interesting area. Too bad the whole experience was ruined when he wasn't able to swap a Hello Kitty eraser for a busted Buzz Lightyear.

 

As to your assertion that micros draw more fire because so many of them are lame, well, that would be an opinion, wouldn't it?

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Therefore, 'micros are lame' threads will show up far more often than 'I like micros'... you have to be totally new, stupid or flameproof to open a thread here that goes against the likes and desires of those top 50 or so posters!

 

Anyone so scared of "going against the likes & dislikes" of others probably doesn't have any original ideas anyway. If they truly had something to say, and it was worth saying it, they would stand from the mountain tops and shout it, regardless of what others would say. I'm not interested in listening to sheep cry about where the herd is going.

 

As Vinny & Sue Team pointed out, this thread has drifted very far from the OP. I still haven't got an answer for my very OT question. The OP said:

 

If history can be an indicator I think I can with some relative assuredness predict that in the probably not too distant future we will see Groundspeak stop publishing them.

 

And I asked:

What evidence/information/data do you have to support this?

 

Jeremy didn't sound like this was imminent. How can you make this prediction with relative assuredness then?

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

BTW, just for the record, I'm not a big fan of micros. But that ISN'T the topic. I read the topic as "TPTB are about to stop publishing micros."